AMD Radeon Memory Modules Spotted in Canada, Japan

[sykozis]

[citation][nom]lp231[/nom]ATi fanbois take note!To get the best out of your CFX setup, you must have AMD branded memory! This will give you a 50% performance boost on all of your games and other programs! Now if you are truly a ATi fan, don't forget our AMD theme case, mouse pad, tissue box, keyboard, and mouse!Oh, Ruby is not included.[/citation]

It's no different from a few years ago when you had "nVidia SLI Certified" DDR2...nVidia branded/styled cases, nVidia bags, t-shirts, hats, etc...

 

[SteelCity1981]

I don't see how those DDR3 1600 can be listed as Ultra Pro when the timings are 11-11-11 which is lowest standard of JEDEC for DDR3 1600. A company branding their ram as Ultra Pro i'd expect it to be 8-8-8 for DDR3 1600 not 11-11-11.

 

[QEFX]

[citation][nom]Legendkiller[/nom]You can get Radeon RAM at NCIX.COM http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=62322 for like $10 each[/citation]


$10 for 2GB, so $5 per GB. With those timings it won't show up in a gaming machine, but at that price is would be possible for office machines or even HTPCs. 4 sticks for (about) $50 including taxes and shipping, no reason to not max out system memory.

Now if they could just work on the timings at that same price per GB.

 

[razor512]

This may be a case of someone at AMD ordering a ton of non branded memory from china and slapping a radeon sticker and quadrupling the price.

 

[Espionage724]

[citation][nom]jacekring[/nom]Only idiots would go for brand name over quality are going to buy those...[/citation]

I slightly agree with this, but then again, I went with a pure AMD/ATI system over, Intel/Nvidia, or AMD/Nvidia, only because I don't have a particular likeness for either Intel nor Nvidia, so in short, I chose brand name over performance

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]I don't see how those DDR3 1600 can be listed as Ultra Pro when the timings are 11-11-11 which is lowest standard of JEDEC for DDR3 1600. A company branding their ram as Ultra Pro i'd expect it to be 8-8-8 for DDR3 1600 not 11-11-11.[/citation]

I dont see why you care what the timings are since it makes no difference. In any case ill still with corsair until i can see what those AMD things are all about

 

[verbalizer]

I slightly agree with this, but then again, I went with a pure AMD/ATI system over, Intel/Nvidia, or AMD/Nvidia, only because I don't have a particular likeness for either Intel nor Nvidia, so in short, I chose brand name over performance

I hope you have learned your lesson...
honestly though, I dis-like AMD/Radeon gfx discrete or on-board.
so I have an AMD/nVidia and an Intel/nVidia.
I had an AMD/AMD Radeon and ran Eyefinity with a 5770 and then a 6850.
still got rid of it for nVidia..

 

[silverblue]

The timings aren't great, but consider that some people bought DDR2-800 modules with 5-5-5-15 timings or worse. Still, to slap an ULTRA PRO sticker on a ho-hum memory module is confusing especially when, as stated above, Llano favours fast RAM with low latencies, just like a graphics card really.

In any case, I think it's time for DDR4 to rear its less-than-ugly head.

 

[legacy7955]

I'm having a difficult time understanding how nanoseconds could actually be noticed by the end user (we humans LOL) whether it is 11 11 11 or
7 7 7.

Could somebody clarify in lay-persons terms what the real world difference is when using out PCs?

 

[Unolocogringo]

[citation][nom]legacy7955[/nom]I'm having a difficult time understanding how nanoseconds could actually be noticed by the end user (we humans LOL) whether it is 11 11 11 or 7 7 7. Could somebody clarify in lay-persons terms what the real world difference is when using out PCs?[/citation]
memory is not rated in nanoseconds but clock cycles.
The only timing I know of for memory is refresh rate.which is 7.8 for older memory and 15.6 for some of the newer memory.
A complete explanation can be found here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency

 

[Unolocogringo]

simple math really.
It takes 11 clock cycles to read one bit from memory with a CAS9 rating.
simply add 2 clock cycles to cas rating. One for the initlize strobe,9 waits and one to 'READ" or transfer out of memory to VGA,CPU harddrive etc.
Of course these are theoreticalmaximums, and does not happen when other latencies are added in.
One bit reads.
cas 8 @1600mhz -1600/10=160.00000 reads per second
cas 9 @1600mhz -1600/11=145.45454 reads per second.
cas 10 @1600mhz -1600/12=133.33333 reads per second
cas 11 @1600mhz -1600/13=123.07692 reads per second

 

[legacy7955]

@Rick:

Thanks for the explanation, I understand a bit better now. So in human terms how noticeable is the difference to the user between the cas of 11 and the cas of 8? Say would this difference be noticeable in complex games but not loading pages of steaming video?

 

[SteelCity1981]

[citation][nom]EnFoRceR22[/nom]I dont see why you care what the timings are since it makes no difference. In any case ill still with corsair until i can see what those AMD things are all about[/citation]

Really timmings makes no diff in ram performance? Man you really don't know anything about timmings do you?

 

[cmcghee358]

What's a timming?

 

[Meatymutawings]

[citation][nom]cmcghee358[/nom]What's a timming?[/citation]
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=memory+timing&l=1

 

[verbalizer]

timing......
not timming.

WTF.?!

 

[legendkiller]

Timing is everything about RAM's Speed, 1600MHz RAM at 6-8-6-22 = 2000MHz at 9-10-9-24 at 17.07GB/s... RAM cost $5 per GB due to it so fast and yes it's like super fast because it's 17GB/s not 17Gb/s... GB=Gigabytes Gb=Gigabits

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]Really timmings makes no diff in ram performance? Man you really don't know anything about timmings do you?[/citation]

Yeah not only have i personally changed timings and saw no differences from my eye for one and on benchmarks but there have even been benchmarks done on this site about it. Showing no differences. the 1 trillionth of a second difference isn't even worth noting. i can see llano benefiting from the increased bandwidth of say ddr5 since it has a video card on die but not faster timings. i would rather get more ram and get a difference i can actually see.

 

[torque79]

This website's own RAM review comparisons have always come to the conclusion that more RAM is better than faster timings (when considering purchasing say either 4gb ram with cas7 timings vs 8gb RAM with cas9 timings). I believe as others have said that Llano finally showed a more noticeable improvement in benchmarks with faster CAS timings, but that does not mean it's worth the extra cost vs buying more RAM.

If you've got enough money so you want 5fps more in games for 8gb cas7 ram vs 8gb cas9 RAM, power to you. Most of us (those looking for good bang for your buck) just don't need it if you've actually read the benchmark articles. I'd really like to see new benchmarks comparing 8gb of this $10 RAM to 8gb of the RAM used in the last $1000 gaming rig. Forget any synthetic benchmarks, just pure gaming FPS comparison and maybe video transcoding. I think this could be a great place to cut costs to buy yourself one tier higher of video card.

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]ohim[/nom]Actually i see it in other way, AMD currently makes CPU/Chipsets/GPUs/Memory ... 1 step closer to actually owning a whole PC system thus making them the Apple of PCs ... You might say Intel has faster better solutions .. well .. intel lacks GPU power.[/citation]
AMD can't be the Apple of PCs, AMD actually makes hardware

 

[jgutz2006]

So i would think they name it AMD and not radeon, but i suppose with the APU, it is sharing some of this RAM, hence the radeon name? If those timings are correctly reported, way to tarnish a good thing. But most users utilizing these Llano systems arent looking for extreme performance. The price point is right i guess

 

[dark_lord69]

[citation][nom]bavman[/nom]Those are horrible timings. 1600mhz @ 11/11/11? I dont even think they make those here. Most 1600 ram kits are 9/9/9 and even go as low as cas7 for performance dimms.[/citation]
yeah, I know that is what I was thinking. Mine are 8-8-8-24 @ 1600 MHz

 

[verbalizer]

yeah, I know that is what I was thinking. Mine are 8-8-8-24 @ 1600 MHz

exactly what mine are....
CL8.

 

[Krnt]

1600 CL11?
They should be doing memories with better timings like 1600 CL7 or CL6!
Well, never mind it still pretty interesting.

 

[verbalizer]

If you've got enough money so you want 5fps more in games for 8gb cas7 ram vs 8gb cas9 RAM, power to you. Most of us (those looking for good bang for your buck) just don't need it if you've actually read the benchmark articles. I'd really like to see new benchmarks comparing 8gb of this $10 RAM to 8gb of the RAM used in the last $1000 gaming rig. Forget any synthetic benchmarks, just pure gaming FPS comparison and maybe video transcoding. I think this could be a great place to cut costs to buy yourself one tier higher of video card.

Too each is own...
But if settling for lower latency RAM for $10 then what is a one tier higher gfx card.?
From what to what exactly.?
HD4200 to HD4250 (LOL), HD5550 to HD5570.

But with 1 tier like HD6870 to HD6950 then I doubt these people would even look at this RAM.
Sacrilegious..